By: Obed Pineda
Imagine you are in attendance at an art gallery displaying the most recent artwork of an up and coming artist. After having been observing closely a great variety of the artist’s work, you come to realize that each piece has a moral message depicted by the sketch. This realization manifests when you arrive to one that peaks your curiosity. The artwork displays an enormous chair gorgeously decorated with gems and fine cloth resembling a royal throne. Yet, it is not the elegant beauty of the chair that allured you, but the tiny man (disproportionate to the size of the chair) climbing down the leg of the chair. Without having read the plaque announcing its name, you astutely deduce the message to be a warning against self-righteousness and an invitation to practice empathy. Self-righteousness is defined by the dictionary as being “convinced of one’s own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). There are a couple of inferences one may make from this definition. First, it becomes apparent that those who are self-righteous lack humility because they are convinced that they are right. Secondly, this attitude is egocentric since the criticism provided by the culprit revolves around their opinion. Finally, it exhibits their struggle with empathy because they are often focused on imposing their authority and make no earnest effort to listen to the other person. Indeed, this evinces the apostle Paul’s instruction that cautions “if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil” (Romans 14:15-16, emphasis added). The fourteenth chapter of the epistle written by Paul to the Romans is instrumental for those “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3, emphasis added). It is a chapter the invites every Christian to relinquish a part of himself for the sake of his brethren. It is imperative, however, to establish that in this chapter the matters that the apostle is addressing are in regard to personal opinions and not doctrine. Remember that the same apostle declared to the Galatians “if anyone preaches any other Gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9, emphasis added). For this reason, it is ludicrous to believe that Paul would be strict with one congregation and not the other, after having pronounced such grave consequence against those who pollute the doctrine of Christ. Thus, it is comprehensible that the inspired penmen is speaking about matters of opinion that do not violate nor trespass the Law of Christ. In this chapter, the issue that falls into this realm is about the foods one chooses to ingest. It is true that in our modern and diverse society, this issue may seem less complicated than it was for Paul during the first century. However, one must recall that when this epistle was written, the merging of Jews and Gentiles in the church was still slowly progressing. This crucial piece of information sheds light on why food was a topic of much discussion in a diversified congregation like the one in Rome. Under the Law of Moses, there were certain animals that had been classified as unclean and for this reason a Jew could not eat them. The Gentile, on the other hand, was never under such restrictions and therefore was accustomed to eat anything and everything. Furthermore, it was customary for certain Gentiles to offer a portion of their meal to their pagan gods and then eat. From the Jewish vantage point, this was idolatry since said food had been offered to idols. Due to these two contrasting worlds coming together, it was not uncommon for a Christian coming from Judaism to be easily offended by what a Christian coming from the Gentiles was choosing to eat. It is necessary not to forget that the Jewish Christian had been under the yoke of the Mosaic Law for more than 1,500 years until Christ had “taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14b, emphasis added). In other words, when this epistle had been inspired by the Holy Spirit, only 24 years, approximately, had passed since the Mosaic yoke had been nailed to the cross. Hence the apostle’s plea to the Gentile Christian to “receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things” (Romans 14:1, emphasis added). Let us understand that the level of strength the apostle refers to is not in regards to their conviction in Christ or His Gospel. Paul is not saying that because one Christian still held on to certain reservations about what foods to consume, this makes him less spiritual. On the contrary, what the apostle is speaking about is that the Christian who had converted from Judaism was still learning how to live free from the bondage of the Law. The effects of this thousand year old yoke was still weighing on their mind, and Paul personally understood how debilitating and difficult it was to renew their way of life. An example of this manner of weakness is Peter who when instructed, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” he promptly responded, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:13, 14, emphasis added). The inspired Luke reveals that thrice Peter is told “What God has cleansed you must not call common” in order to prepare the apostle for the revelation that “God has also granted the Gentiles repentance to life” (Acts 10:15-16, 11:18, emphasis added). Peter’s adherence to the Law, as a Christian, was not a lack of spiritual strength, but a lapse in understanding. The apostle was still being taught the full extent of God’s plan of salvation, which required the complete removal of the Law. The lesson that Peter received by the Lord is the same one taught by the apostle Paul to the church in Rome. He espouses, “Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him” (Romans 14:3, emphasis added). Notice the apostle’s clever assessment of how both can manifest this flawed mindset. The Gentile who condescends the Jew who chooses not to eat meat, ignores that he is still learning to leave behind an entire lifestyle. The Jew who criticizes the Gentile for what he eats, forgets that the Law is no longer functioning. More importantly, both neglect to accept that “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1st Corinthians 8:1b, emphasis added). Regardless of whether they eat or not eat, the problem is that neither is making an effort to understand the other. Often, the one who already knows is asked to patiently bear with the one who does not know. Yet, Scripture argues that to solely bear is insufficient and injust because “love edifies.” The apostle encourages he who is strong to build up the strength of his weaker brother, making sure “not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way” (Romans 14:13b, emphasis). May we then remember to get down from our high chair and “let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification” (Romans 15:3, emphasis added).